Consumers' willingness to pay for genetically modified foods with product-enhancing nutritional attributes.

摘要

This article assesses consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for new intragenic fresh vegetables with product-enhanced antioxidant and vitamin C levels. Individuals from a random set of telephone numbers in two metropolitan areas were contacted by an independent survey group in 2007 to obtain their agreement to participate, and participants came to a central location-a laboratory or classroom. Participants for the study were solicited from the general public by an independent marketing organization in two different cities (Des Moines, Iowa and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) in order to obtain a representative sample. Each experimental session consisted of four primary steps. After completing a series of consent forms and receiving financial compensation in the amount of $45, the ninety-eight participants were trained in the experimental auction. Training consisted of instructions, examples, a two-round practice auction, and a postpractice quiz on the nth-price auction mechanism. After gaining familiarity with the nth-price auction, participants were provided with one of four randomly assigned information treatments: (a) an agribusiness (pro-biotech) perspective on GMconsisting primarily of positive statements about it, (b) an environmental (anti-biotech) perspective on GM consisting primarily of negative statements about it, (c) both the pro- and anti-biotech perspectives, and (d) the pro- and anti-biotech perspectives with verifiable factual information onGM from independent sources. Each perspective was limited to a single standard page size and organized in a common fashion. A key reference point in the experiments was a fifth information "treatment" that was empty or did not contain any information. After participants took a few minutes to digest the information treatment assigned to them, the auction began. In each of the four rounds of bidding, three products were offered for sale: one pound of broccoli, one pound of beefsteak tomatoes, and five pounds of russet potatoes-each in plain packaging. Products in each round bore a label indicating the type of commodity and the product weight. We refer to a label treatment consisting of only these statements as a "plain label." Two additional labelling statements were injected into two of the rounds:"intragenic GM"and "transgenic GM," both with the additional statement: "Enhanced levels of antioxidants and vitamin C." The ordering of food labels across sessions was randomized. Overall, findings show that consumers do value enhanced nutrition (antioxidants and vitamin C) obtained through GM. But consumers are more accepting of foods with enhanced nutrition obtained through intragenics compared with transgenics. Most notably, findings show that consumers are willing to pay more for intragenic labels with enhanced nutrition compared with conventional plain labels. Although findings present a somewhat positive picture for the potential of intragenics to obtain a foothold in the food market, they also suggest that information injected into the public domain will continue to play an important role in determining consumer acceptance. Findings reveal that the information available to consumers when making purchase decisions has a significant effect on relative valuations for GM and non-GM labels. While pro-biotechnology information disseminated by agribusiness in isolation has significant positive effects on consumer valuations for GM labels, this effect is reduced when anti-biotechnology information is simultaneously injected into the market. This is the first evidence that U.S. consumers are willing to pay a premium for an intragenic GM labelled food product relative to a conventional alternative. Moreover, this result opens the door to the possibility that the food industry in the United States may have an incentive to voluntarily label an intragenic GM food product as intragenic GM.